PDA

View Full Version : More About the F4U Flight Model...



DONB3397
11-15-2004, 11:51 AM
A couple of weeks ago, some posters were complaining about PF€s flight models. Some thought they were €œdumbed down,€ that is, too easy to fly and land. The Corsair FM, especially, was hammered because it couldn€t be stalled, seemed to float down to landings, or refused to lose lift even in tight, slow turns.

Maybe 1C thought the average sim pilot would lose patience and give up if they weren€t able to master carrier landings. (BTW, easy FMs haven€t helped me much.)

Anyway, I wonder how we€d react if the F4U was modeled absolutely accurately. It was a beast to fly and maintain according to material I found recently while researching a skinning project. From €œJolly Rogers,€ a book by Tom Blackburn, this excerpt:

€œThe Corsair appeared to be a superb fighting machine, but it was over engineered and thus hard to maintain. At the start of a typical day's ops, only about half of our full complement was safe to fly.

€œThe 2,800-cubic-inch engine was a monster to fire up€¦ First, it took two strong men pulling on a prop blade to slowly €¦to clear the lower cylinders of oil so the start-up could be accomplished in safety. Next, the engine had to be primed with raw gasoline. This touchy enterprise had to stop short of flooding and thus drowning the spark plugs and evade the obvious fire hazard while getting enough vaporized fuel into the cylinders to get the engine to cough to life. Some genius had equipped the Corsair with a shotgun starter in lieu of the heavy electric starter. When all was in readiness, the shotgun shell was fired. Sometimes it went bang and turned the prop through three or more revolutions. Mostly, however, it just went poof and the prop just twitched. Four abortive tries generally overheated the starter, and that resulted in a fifteen-minute stand-down for cooling. So much for geniuses.

€œEach of fourteen cowl flaps had its own baby hydraulic cylinder to open and close it. These tended to leak. In addition, until the maintenance crews became expert, the big radial engine tended to throw a lot of oil. The combination rapidly coated the windshield and seriously decreased the airplane's inherently limited forward visibility. We all became expert at quickly locating rain showers through which we could fly in order to wash away the oil.

€œThe landing flaps had a protective device to prevent extension at airspeeds high enough to cause overstressing. This was a dandy feature except that the flaps could and often did retract fully and without warning during the final stages of a landing approach. Of course, this resulted in a horrendous loss of lift and a rapid sinking. The pilot, ever alert for such mishaps, had to slam on full power to evade disaster. After too many narrow escapes, we got the "flap blowup" removed, it being our decision to risk tearing off a flap as against losing lift in this terrifying, dangerous manner. To my knowledge, no one ever did tear off a flap.

"The Corsair's storage battery, which was located in the cockpit, had an unhealthy habit of boiling over. In one case, a battery exploded while the airplane was in flight. We later determined that it had been excessively over- charged, but the incident gave us one more in a long line of potential life-threatening problems to bear in mind while we were trying to fly - and eventually, fight - our irascible Hogs.€œ

Sure sounds like fun to me.

Von_Zero
11-15-2004, 12:04 PM
nice read, it's cool to find stuff about the maintainance of diff planes, we rarely see anything about this, but what does it has in common with the flight model? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
This guy is only saying about the problems they had with some of its parts, not about how it should fly or perform against its opponents.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> €œThe Corsair appeared to be a superb fighting machine, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the axis pilots thought the same about the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

RedDeth
11-15-2004, 01:06 PM
irrelevant to the fighting characteristics of the plane and supposedly mushy flight model.

topic should be renamed maintenance of corsair and reference to previous threads should be deleted.

MAKE IT SO

VMF-312_530hawk
11-15-2004, 01:15 PM
Basicly worse with the IJA airplanes.
JM2 series had very bad engine problems and extreamly poor landing visability. and were used mainly aginst B-29s.

Ki-84 had the same poor engine servise as well as the loss of fuel and hydraulic presure above 30k. It also had a very weak landing gear.

The N1K2J was the better fighter as far as quality and was prominent in many pacific theaters.

Worse than maint problems was the fact that vetern pilots were few and far between as well as suited ground crews to keep them airworthy. Many if not most were not skilled enough to match the skill of the Allied pilots and crew thus making thier superior fighters usless. Not to mention the lack of parts due to factory bombings. Then removing the rest of them by using them as suicide fighters.

Most were used as Homland Defence attacking bombers such as the B-29s and ground attack rolls. Basicly thier lack of early production cost them the war...scarry huh?

faustnik
11-15-2004, 01:45 PM
Is there a date associated with the exerpts you posted DonB? I thought these issues were a problem with the very early Corsairs only?

horseback
11-15-2004, 01:54 PM
Blackburn's tenure with VF-17 began around spring of 1943, and extended through deployment in the Solomons into early 1944. The mainentance/quality problems of the Corsair were well known, and were about half the reason that the Hellcat became the primary US Navy carrier fighter in WWII.

Flight characteristics were very good --when the individual aircraft was operational.

cheers

horseback

DONB3397
11-15-2004, 02:54 PM
Horseback is about right, it was mid-February, 1943. VF-17 was apparently the second Navy unit to get the plane; VF-12 was operational first, and on their way when Blackburn and his crew began training and landing on a carrier.

At first, the pilots seemed to have a dim view of the plane's handling characteristics. One veteran Wildcat pilot in VF-12 remarked, "This plane is about as cooperative as a hog on ice." The sobriquet stuck. It was called a hog, not because of it's long nose, but because it was apparently hard to manage. Getting down on a carrier deck was a tough process and VF-17 wiped out several Corsairs in the process of qualifying (though no one was seriously hurt).

Later, pilots appreciated the speed, climb and dive characteristics and roll rate, etc.

My point here is simple. While a surprising number of the flyable a/c in IL2/AEP seemed to mirror reported flight characteristics of the real planes, this one has room for improvement.

Bull_dog_
11-15-2004, 03:06 PM
I don't understand all this nonsense about not being able to stall planes...I repeatedly stall the corsair and have stalled the Hellcat and plunged to death.... now I don't claim to be any great pilot, but I have stalled them all especially as my speed declined...I think, based on what I have read, the the Grumman Hellcat and Wilcat were extremely easy to fly, both fast and slow. The corsair was easy to fly once airborn and with a little speed...it was tricky to land and to take off or at low speed.

I have found no glaring contradictions with what I have read except for maybe low speed torque which isn't right for many aircraft...that is putting fuel to the engine on approach causing a plane, the corsair was one of many, to do crazy things like flipping over or flying sideways from yaw.

Von_Zero
11-15-2004, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> this one has room for improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
improvement like?

DangerForward
11-15-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
Horseback is about right, it was mid-February, 1943. VF-17 was apparently the second Navy unit to get the plane; VF-12 was operational first, and on their way when Blackburn and his crew began training and landing on a carrier.

At first, the pilots seemed to have a dim view of the plane's handling characteristics. One veteran Wildcat pilot in VF-12 remarked, "This plane is about as cooperative as a hog on ice." The sobriquet stuck. It was called a hog, not because of it's long nose, but because it was apparently hard to manage. Getting down on a carrier deck was a tough process and VF-17 wiped out several Corsairs in the process of qualifying (though no one was seriously hurt).

Later, pilots appreciated the speed, climb and dive characteristics and roll rate, etc.

My point here is simple. While a surprising number of the flyable a/c in IL2/AEP seemed to mirror reported flight characteristics of the real planes, this one has room for improvement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VF-12 wasn't as lucky as VF-17, 14 pilots died during Corsair training. This was with the early F4U-1 though.

Maple_Tiger
11-15-2004, 03:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bull_dog_:
I don't understand all this nonsense about not being able to stall planes...I repeatedly stall the corsair and have stalled the Hellcat and plunged to death.... now I don't claim to be any great pilot, but I have stalled them all especially as my speed declined...I think, based on what I have read, the the Grumman Hellcat and Wilcat were extremely easy to fly, both fast and slow. The corsair was easy to fly once airborn and with a little speed...it was tricky to land and to take off or at low speed.

I have found no glaring contradictions with what I have read except for maybe low speed torque which isn't right for many aircraft...that is putting fuel to the engine on approach causing a plane, the corsair was one of many, to do crazy things like flipping over or flying sideways from yaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



After buying a new joystick last week, Logitech, I have to learn each plane again lol. Stalling any plane is easy to do now. My previous stick was a plane Sidewinder.

DRB_Hookech0
11-15-2004, 03:37 PM
The quotes from Blackburn are for their initial F4u-1's most if not all of those problems listed plus a few others (like the stall tabs on the left wing and the softer anti-bounce pots...ie...shock absorbers and the bubble canopy) were fixed by Vought and waiting for them just prior to deployment. These Hogs were new F4u-1a's.

Also if you read the book it talked about them getting WEP installed after their 1st tour and in the run up to their 2nd tour on 3 planes. This sounds like a field mod to me...I wonder when the R-2800-8 got the WEP kits at the factory?

voyager_663rd
11-15-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The quotes from Blackburn are for their initial F4u-1's most if not all of those problems listed plus a few others (like the stall tabs on the left wing and the softer anti-bounce pots...ie...shock absorbers and the bubble canopy) were fixed by Vought and waiting for them just prior to deployment. These Hogs were new F4u-1a's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess just how much "reality" can we stand? The birds in the game don't have the tab (which is on the right wing just outboard of the guns) which greatly assisted in carrier landings.

For that matter, theoretically, we should not even be able to land on the deck. The real pilots couldn't (90% of them anyway at a guess)till that tab was installed. Why should we be able to?

DRB_Hookech0
11-15-2004, 04:53 PM
sorry...right wing. The left wing stalled 1st....duh...get the right to stall at same time...Doh!

DangerForward
11-15-2004, 07:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by voyager_663rd:
I guess just how much "reality" can we stand? The birds in the game don't have the tab (which is on the right wing just outboard of the guns) which greatly assisted in carrier landings.

For that matter, theoretically, we should not even be able to land on the deck. The real pilots couldn't (90% of them anyway at a guess)till that tab was installed. Why should we be able to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since we have the 1A, I'd say we have the corsair with the tab(spoiler). Even though it may not be visible on the visible model.

muHamad-ALi
11-15-2004, 07:32 PM
This n00b ride is being fixed. Dont worry. I have inside information. Corsair pilots will earn great respect taking the future flight model into consideration.

voyager_663rd
11-15-2004, 09:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DangerForward:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by voyager_663rd:
I guess just how much "reality" can we stand? The birds in the game don't have the tab (which is on the right wing just outboard of the guns) which greatly assisted in carrier landings.

For that matter, theoretically, we should not even be able to land on the deck. The real pilots couldn't (90% of them anyway at a guess)till that tab was installed. Why should we be able to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since we have the 1A, I'd say we have the corsair with the tab(spoiler). Even though it may not be visible on the visible model. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I only say that since it can't be seen. Nor can the foot step in the right flap on the 1D be seen either.

A lot is good about the detailing in these planes. But accurate? Nah. Like I said, they can only take this stuff so far. But then again, when they can place a rolling pencil on the navigators worktable (TB3 (?) ), why not the stall tab on the l.e. of the wing or the footstep in the flap of the D?

That attention to detail (the pencil) leads me to believe that the plane detail we do see are like they are because someone either forgot or just didn't know some of the detail that existed on the real thing.

Honestly, it makes no never mind. Still a fantastic game that I love exploring.

DRB_Hookech0
11-15-2004, 10:37 PM
I'm not sure you can see the tab...but I have found that the left wing will stall at about 70 KIAS with high AOA....I have eaten the back of the carrier enough to find this out.

In fact I find I can stall the "hog" at critical AOA a lot if I'm not carfull...heck that must make me a noob

...whatever

jurinko
11-16-2004, 10:56 AM
F4U-1A had just one hydraulic pump or cylinder opening/closing all radiators at once. The top cowl radiator flaps were removed and replaced by flat surface even before. Also the fuel loss was a problem and therefore those white lines in front of the canopy. Otherwise great information, thanks.

Cmte. Carvalho
11-16-2004, 02:48 PM
I read somewhere that the F-4U engine was so powerful that during some circunstances (especially at low speeds), the power should be applied slowly or the engine torque would be so strong that could make the plane to loose control. I didn't read the entire topic, so sorry if anyone post this before me...

Thanks.

DONB3397
11-16-2004, 03:39 PM
The 18-cylinder P&W R-2800 Double Wasp engine in the Corsair was the most powerful fighter engine used up to the plane€s introduction. It drove an enormous 9-foot prop and generated so much torque that F4U€s tended to veer hard right on the carrier deck before gaining enough speed/steerage for the rudder to get a bite. Pilots were trained to get the tail off the deck and stand hard on the port rudder to keep the plane on the center line of the flight deck. I suppose that€s why the films all show Corsairs coming off carriers with their rudders pegged. At the bow, the pilot rotated the nose up to get airborne. Almost immediately after lift off, he would give the plane its head and turn 45-degrees right so the next man wouldn€t have to fight his prop wash, and to get out of the way of the ship. It must have been a dodgy experience.

The huge power of the engine had some serious advantages, speed being foremost. And there were a few unexpected benefits.

In his book, €œBlack Sheep,€ Bruce Gamble tells a story reported by Lt. Bill Case, a member of VMF-214 when they transitioned to F4U-1s. During combat, a bullet pierced the side of his Corsair€s cowling and penetrated the exhaust manifold.

He reported, €œThe engine was running so hard that it blew the round out the exhaust stack. There was no paint on the far side of the manifold. Now, I was really impressed with power that can turn a bullet ninety degrees and blow it out the back.€

I wonder if that could be modeled?

Sir.Robin-1337
11-16-2004, 03:46 PM
DO yourself a favour and fly the P-51D20NA.. then you know you're flying the best, and there is no need to worry about flight models.

voyager_663rd
11-16-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
It drove an enormous 9-foot prop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Prop on the 1A through to initial version of the 1D was 13'4" (each blade was therefore 6"8") but during 1D production the prop was reduced to 13'1".

Also, here's a pic of the trim tab. Can't see it in the game (but I'm sure it has been "modelled" in the FM).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/voyager_663rd/1Dspoiler.jpg

DONB3397
11-16-2004, 08:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by voyager_663rd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
It drove an enormous 9-foot prop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Prop on the 1A through to initial version of the 1D was 13'4" (each blade was therefore 6"8") but during 1D production the prop was reduced to 13'1".

Also, here's a pic of the trim tab. Can't see it in the game (but I'm sure it has been "modelled" in the FM).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right. I had open specs in front of me, but that was one not included...only that the inverted gull wing was used to compensate for the prop size. Thanks for the correction.

knightflyte
11-17-2004, 01:09 AM
Voyager,

That's a beauty of a Corsair. Great work.
When will she be flyable?


I miss flying R/C. I should get back into it but my apartment is small and the smell of paints and thinners and ALL the sanding wouldn't go over well with the neighbours.


I built a Spitfire about 20 years ago...(Sport Scale) Flew it a few times and had to move and lost interest.


In the ensueing years I'd pick up a few RCM magazines and dream of flying again.


(Heck that was so long ago that my old MRC Radio frequencies are now out dated by the FCC and the AMA.)


Again, GREAT JOB. I can't wait to hear about her flight.



regards,
Robert

GR142-Pipper
11-17-2004, 02:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
(...snip...)€œThe Corsair appeared to be a superb fighting machine, but it was over engineered and thus hard to maintain. At the start of a typical day's ops, only about half of our full complement was safe to fly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Specific to this particular paragraph, that only half of the assigned aircraft were safe to fly at any given time was likely a direct result of parts unavailability.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
11-17-2004, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by voyager_663rd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DONB3397:
It drove an enormous 9-foot prop

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Prop on the 1A through to initial version of the 1D was 13'4" (each blade was therefore 6"8") but during 1D production the prop was reduced to 13'1".

Also, here's a pic of the trim tab. Can't see it in the game (but I'm sure it has been "modelled" in the FM).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/voyager_663rd/1Dspoiler.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just out of curiosity, you're not saying that the object outlined on the leading edge was a trim tab are you? (...because it isn't)

GR142-Pipper

DRB_Hookech0
11-17-2004, 07:15 AM
No.....its to help stall the wing because both wings did not stall at the same time....thus the left wing would stall 1st and roll the plane over....

Try it....70 KIAS, 50 feet, high AOA, Flaps, Gear Hook.....and about 2-300 feet from the edge of the ramp....it's a sucky feeling as you roll over...

Biloxi72
11-17-2004, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by muHamad-ALi:
This n00b ride is being fixed. Dont worry. I have inside information. Corsair pilots will earn great respect taking the future flight model into consideration. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good god quit being a obvious troll. These guys are dedicated and it seems to me true lovers of the corsair. If the model changes then so what they will deal with it. If anything they will look forward to it. Yet everytime i see you post its always negative and glad they doiong something to the corsair.

Maybe you fly jap planes and are getting whacked by the corsair, well if you still get whacked by this plane are you still gonna call it a UFO? I bet you will. No one inhere that i have seen is complaining that the corsair will be fixed. Guys like you that really ruin the game and these forums with your constant "nerf this or this is a UFO ****" I really dont see why you must go around and constantly try and start something with 'sair pilots. You dont have something that pertains to the discussion stay out of it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Bull_dog_
11-17-2004, 06:08 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

I agree...I was flying last night and hopped into a Ki-43 for the first time on line...Normally I'm an energy kind of pilot and really like the spits and corsair....something interesting happened...I shot down several hellcats and corsairs and was lit up a few times myself...but what was interesting was that most of my kills came as I was pecking away with those little machine guns and two of the hellcats and 1 corsair I shot down manuevered so hard that they spun out and crashed! Not much ammo in those planes, but get the big heavy american planes turning and low and they just can't escape until you run out of ammo.

P.s....another hint...fly only on servers with big, thick low clouds! They work great for throwing off those darn Bz guys.

SkyChimp
11-17-2004, 06:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by voyager_663rd:


Also, here's a pic of the trim tab. Can't see it in the game (but I'm sure it has been "modelled" in the FM).
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/voyager_663rd/1Dspoiler.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not a trim tab. That's the leading edge spoiler designed to reduce lift-coefficient for that wing so both wings would (hopefully) stall at the same time preventing roll.

Chuck_Older
11-17-2004, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir.Robin-1337:
DO yourself a favour and fly the P-51D20NA.. then you know you're flying the best, and there is no need to worry about flight models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need shinier bait, Sir Fishalot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LuftLuver
11-17-2004, 08:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sir.Robin-1337:
DO yourself a favour and fly the P-51D20NA.. then you know you're flying the best, and there is no need to worry about flight models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you need shinier bait, Sir Fishalot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Yah, try this one Sir Robbman. And troll your line in more slowly. U should catch some bottomfeeders now.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/gallery/images/yeager-planes/p51-4_072.jpg

voyager_663rd
11-17-2004, 08:58 PM
My bad. not trim tab http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif . spoiler to allow both wings to stall at same time. just goes to show: think twice type once.

And that plane in my sig is NOT my model. But it is one that I am modelling my RC plane after. Sorry I wasn't clear in the text. I love that pic because it is one of the few I've found that are done (or rather, re-done) in authentic colours/rondels for RAF Corsairs flown in S Pacific (specifically against Japan). The yellow cowl is post-war though (Dec 1945) so that aspect is not authentic for my purposes as the plane I am recreating was shot down Aug 9 1945 and was flown at that time by V.C. winner Lt RH Gray (Canada).

knightflyte
11-17-2004, 09:14 PM
Thanks,
I knew it was the link, voyager... I did look and it's VERY nice.

I'd love to see pix of the engine detail. That had always amazed me how some model the actual engine....even if it is only a mock up of the cylinders,and it's a 2 stroke. It's been a while so I'm sure technology has come QUITE far.


thanks,
Robert

voyager_663rd
11-17-2004, 09:22 PM
Mine will have a 4 stroke RCV90SP in it. It is a unique design in that it is a RotaryCylindricalValve-hence RCV-engine.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v37/voyager_663rd/90sp.jpg


It'll have a fake (plastic) radial front to it but everything else will be as scale as I can make it (except no retract tailwheel--gonna be heavy as it is).

Just waiting for suitable retracts to be made (hopefully by Xmas) and building will recommence.

Thanks for comments.

If you're interested, you can follow my Corsair build at my squad's website:

http://663blacktigers.net/ipw-web/gallery/album18

And you don't have to go nuts like I am on building. You can always get an arf and use only some yellow carpenters glue and epoxy. Forget the paint and thinners.

25-30 hr and you'd have a plane that's not all that bad.

knightflyte
11-17-2004, 10:17 PM
Son of a Gun!


I totally forgot about ARFs. Half the fun is the pride of building...AND .... showing it off.

But in life compromises must be made sometimes.

Looks like I'll be doing Google searches...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

voyager_663rd
11-17-2004, 11:39 PM
Mine will have a 4 stroke RCV90SP in it. It is a unique design in that it is a RotaryCylindricalValve-hence RCV-engine.

It'll have a fake (plastic) radial front to it but everything else will be as scale as I can make it (except no retract tailwheel--gonna be heavy as it is).

Just waiting for suitable retracts to be made (hopefully by Xmas) and building will recommence.

Thanks for comments